I am conducting a series of design-related discussions and surveys. I wanted to share this survey with pholx here to listen to your opinions on subjects. Topic for this survey is the D&D Monk class.

Survey: https://poll-maker.com/QPCGIQYNW

Please let me know what you think, if anything. I am also open to suggestions if you have any ideas to improve my survey. Please share if you know anyone who might be interested in this topic!

I wanted to write to add more detail to this post and possibly encourage some discussion on this topic.

Some background: I only started playing D&D with 5th edition. I have a good background reading fantasy literature, but I don't really understand what the Monk class is supposed to represent in a fantasy setting like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. Unlike the usual sword-wielding knights, archers, and magic-wielding wizards, the monk relies on hand-to-hand combat and physical agility to overcome foes. The Monk archetype seems more drawn from Wuxia films than a typical fantasy setting.

That being said, there's some interesting mechanical ideas in the Monk class that seem to have some value. Why, for example, are typical Fighters, Barbarians generally constrained by "realism" when Clerics & Sorcerers are reshaping reality with spells? Why can't a weapon-wielding warrior move with the swiftness of the wind, jump like a superhero, stun foes with targeted strikes, and other mechanical tools that Monks get?

The initial inspiration seems to be drawn from Shaolin monks.

But it's not that hard to fit it into more of a western/occidental setting. In fact, we have such a figure. William of Gellone was a monk that in legends could smite foes with his bare hands. And this is a totally canon figure. He was literally canonized by a Pope.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 08, 2023, 01:23:28 PM
The initial inspiration seems to be drawn from Shaolin monks.

But it's not that hard to fit it into more of a western/occidental setting. In fact, we have such a figure. William of Gellone was a monk that in legends could smite foes with his bare hands. And this is a totally canon figure. He was literally canonized by a Pope.

I think it is reasonable to represent warriors who fight without weapons, there are many mythological figures who are dangerous without weapons or using only improvised weapons. Herakles, Samson, Beowulf, etc. I am not sure the Monk class does this well, since the Monk's ability set rarely maps well to the legendary feats attributed to these characters.

I am also not sure if it would be a bad thing mechanically to give more powers to warrior-type characters. Is there a mechanical reason why it would be objectionable to give a Fighter a Stunning Strike, for example? It doesn't seem like this is altogether unbalancing considering the wide array of spells that are accepted for spellcasters to know & use.

You see, the early pioneers of the hobby were a good deal more cavalier in their influences than we would be nowadays. The first settings (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Tékumel, etc.) were a lot more eclectic than we would use today: one of the first modules for D&D (S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks), the PCs come upon... well, I don't know if I should spoil an adventure from 1980, but it's easy enough to find out what is there. At any rate, in the late '70s there was a surge in popularity for kung fu movies — mostly due to Bruce Lee — and from there, some schlock novels were created and eventually Gygax decided to include some kung fu-fighting characters into the game.

So no, the monk is not based on anything that would show up in Lord of the Rings or a Song of Ice and Fire, but would show up in a lot of the '70s fantasy pulp that influenced Gygax, Arneson and the rest of the founders of the hobby.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 08, 2023, 01:23:28 PM
The initial inspiration seems to be drawn from Shaolin monks.

But it's not that hard to fit it into more of a western/occidental setting. In fact, we have such a figure. William of Gellone was a monk that in legends could smite foes with his bare hands. And this is a totally canon figure. He was literally canonized by a Pope.

Very much doubt I could find the source now, but like a decade ago I remember reading that there was actually a substantial wrestling tradition in the monasteries of medieval Europe, so there's possibly something to go off of there, too

Quote from: Dinopaw on March 08, 2023, 12:18:01 PM
That being said, there's some interesting mechanical ideas in the Monk class that seem to have some value. Why, for example, are typical Fighters, Barbarians generally constrained by "realism" when Clerics & Sorcerers are reshaping reality with spells? Why can't a weapon-wielding warrior move with the swiftness of the wind, jump like a superhero, stun foes with targeted strikes, and other mechanical tools that Monks get?

You've actually hit on what I consider to be one of the biggest internal conflicts in the overall design of D&D there. Back in the 3.0-3.5 days there was a problem in the system which a lot of people referred to as "linear fighter; quadratic wizard". That phrases the problem in numerical terms, but at it's core, people have noticed for a long time that while casters in D&D ascend to almost godlike power, martial classes only really become superhuman in terms of their hit points.

When I first got 5e in my hands, I remember thinking it was actually a good idea that they had given so many of the martial classes what (for lack of a better word) I'll call super-powers. Apparently, 4th edition did this as well, but I never owned that game.

Most people in old school circles disagree, but here's my thing with it: If a 20th level wizard represents someone who is so intellectually advanced that they can warp reality with just the power of their mind, and the 20th level cleric represents someone who is so holy they can command the literal Wrath of God, what else is a 20th level fighter supposed to represent, if not a person who has attained such a level of physical prowess that it becomes superhuman? Where I disagree with the design of later editions of D&D is that they so often gave the martial classes explicitly magical powers, rather than abilities which represent that supreme level of martial skill. 

I'll give a weird real-world example. There was a bit of a meme going around the YouTube martial arts world a while back that argued that wildly impractical systems like Aikido and Tai Chi actually represent the highest evolution of martial arts. The idea is that the moves taught in those systems are so subtle and advanced that they're actually beyond the capability of human beings to pull off in a fight. I'd argue that the high-level D&D fighter ought to represent the person who actually can do that level of technique in combat.

My beef with the monk (outside of the flavor not fitting in with most settings) is that it kind of cucks the other martial classes out of abilities they should have. The mere existence of a dedicated "martial artist" class implies that fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins etc. are all not actually using martial arts. As if they're just randomly swinging their weapons without any kind of technique. Why would a master of armed combat not also be better than the vast majority of people at unarmed fighting? Why is it only the monk that can deflect arrows? Why are they the only martial class whose skill makes it so they don't need magic weapons? If you want to argue that it's because of channeling their chi or whatever, then why can't an elite fighter do that with a sword stroke? In cultures that believe in that sort of thing, they absolutely do believe that swordsmen can do it as well or better than open-hand fighters.

The way I see it, you're either making a game where supernatural levels of combat prowess are a thing, or you aren't. If you are, then everything the monk can do should be incorporated into the other martial classes. If you aren't, then you can't have the Monk, and you probably ought to re-examine what both magic and class levels represent in your game.

I can only respond referencing 1e AD&D. The class' most direct influence is the TV series Kung Fu, from 1972. In the show a half-Chinese Shaolin monk "walks the land" in the southwestern United States in the 19th century. D&D enthusiasts who loved the show were the ones playing that class, and I'm one of them.

I smiled when I read the references to 20th level characters upthread. Achieving "name level," usually 9th, was the goal in 1e. A wizard can build a tower, a cleric can found a temple, a thief can start a guild, aaand -- a fighter builds a stronghold, thus becoming a ruler. That's where it pays off for the fighter.

Quote from: Baron on April 14, 2023, 10:22:10 PM
I smiled when I read the references to 20th level characters upthread. Achieving "name level," usually 10th, was the goal in 1e. A wizard can build a tower, a cleric can found a temple, a thief can start a guild, aaand -- a fighter builds a stronghold, thus becoming a ruler. That's where it pays off for the fighter.

I understood the question to be in reference to 5e, and (as I'm sure you know) name level isn't a thing there. And of course if the game only goes up to 11th level, it's less of an issue. EDIT: It's less of an issue in old school games anyway, just because all the classes have fewer abilities.

However, it has to be acknowledged that even in the old school milieu, domain-level play wasn't something everyone cared about. Otherwise, BECMI wouldn't have bothered to include the "traveling" character types. Speaking of BECMI, you really have to wonder what a 36th-level fighter is supposed to look like in universe (though I also wonder how many people actually took characters to max level in that game).

Quote from: Dinopaw on March 08, 2023, 02:48:16 PM
I think it is reasonable to represent warriors who fight without weapons, there are many mythological figures who are dangerous without weapons or using only improvised weapons. Herakles, Samson, Beowulf, etc. I am not sure the Monk class does this well, since the Monk's ability set rarely maps well to the legendary feats attributed to these characters.

I don't think the one necessarily has anything to do with the other. The monk is its own thing.

QuoteI am also not sure if it would be a bad thing mechanically to give more powers to warrior-type characters. Is there a mechanical reason why it would be objectionable to give a Fighter a Stunning Strike, for example? It doesn't seem like this is altogether unbalancing considering the wide array of spells that are accepted for spellcasters to know & use.

You could justify mostly anything and everything. After all it's a fantasy game. That doesn't mean anything and everything actually should be done. So making a case for it is not the bar to clear. I mean, I don't know what you mean by a "Stunning Strike." In 1E, there is an unarmed combat system that anyone can use, and it is possible to stun someone with a punch. Anyone can do it.

Here's the conundrum. If you're playing a game where fighters CAN do that, what could possibly gained by giving then a Stunning Strike? It's not actually expanding their abilities. You're just creating a new rule that's presumably and exception or over-ride to an existing rule. On the other hand, if you're playing a game where fighters can't do that, you have to question if that was by design of the game. Is this supposed to be something fighters can't do just for the sake of each character having its strengths and weaknesses? Because that would certainly serve as a reason not to do it.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 13, 2023, 10:27:33 PMMy beef with the monk (outside of the flavor not fitting in with most settings) is that it kind of cucks the other martial classes out of abilities they should have. The mere existence of a dedicated "martial artist" class implies that fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins etc. are all not actually using martial arts. As if they're just randomly swinging their weapons without any kind of technique.

I came to this conclusion as well. But I would also add that the D&D monk doesn't do a good job representing the old kung fu movies either. In those movies you would very often see characters fighting will all sorts of weapons; spears, swords, axes, fans, etc. Often the character would be equally proficient in a variety of weapon and improvised items. So an unarmed-exclusive class doesn't match the source material or even the historical martial artists that those movies try to emulate.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 19, 2023, 11:48:35 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 13, 2023, 10:27:33 PMMy beef with the monk (outside of the flavor not fitting in with most settings) is that it kind of cucks the other martial classes out of abilities they should have. The mere existence of a dedicated "martial artist" class implies that fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins etc. are all not actually using martial arts. As if they're just randomly swinging their weapons without any kind of technique.

I came to this conclusion as well. But I would also add that the D&D monk doesn't do a good job representing the old kung fu movies either. In those movies you would very often see characters fighting will all sorts of weapons; spears, swords, axes, fans, etc. Often the character would be equally proficient in a variety of weapon and improvised items. So an unarmed-exclusive class doesn't match the source material or even the historical martial artists that those movies try to emulate.

I tend to agree. It seems very strange that things like stunnings attacks, deflecting projectiles, or performing exceptional feats of athletics are given to Monks but denied to warrior-type classes. It's quite common in fiction for heroes to perform incredible feats, like Robin Hood splitting an arrow, or a hero who deflects arrows with his sword, etc.
This paradigm seems to imply that it's acceptable for Monks to perform supernatural-seeming feats but not acceptable for traditional warrior archetypes.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 13, 2023, 10:27:33 PMMy beef with the monk (outside of the flavor not fitting in with most settings)

Eh. I don't think there's any truth to that at all. I know I've done it just fine. And if some GMs have no problem working it in while other GMs do, I think that speaks to an imagination deficit on the part of the latter and not so much anything intrinsic about the monk.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 19, 2023, 11:48:35 AM
I came to this conclusion as well. But I would also add that the D&D monk doesn't do a good job representing the old kung fu movies either. In those movies you would very often see characters fighting will all sorts of weapons; spears, swords, axes, fans, etc. Often the character would be equally proficient in a variety of weapon and improvised items. So an unarmed-exclusive class doesn't match the source material or even the historical martial artists that those movies try to emulate.

The 1E monks are given a damage bonus when using weapons. I think at low levels, they're clearly more effective using weapons than their open-hand attacks. At mid-level, if you assume magic weapons commensurate with their level and also "min-max" by dual wielding hand-axes, you can still put out more "DPS" using weapons rather than the open hand attack. Although at both low and mid levels, the difference in overall effectiveness is minimal, so there will be different situations where different choices will shine.

It's only at high levels where the open hand attacks are far more effective than weapon use. The only problem is sometimes you will encounter monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons, so the monk will still need to switch to weapons from time to time.

Quote from: Dinopaw on May 02, 2023, 12:01:43 PM
I tend to agree. It seems very strange that things like stunnings attacks, deflecting projectiles, or performing exceptional feats of athletics are given to Monks but denied to warrior-type classes. It's quite common in fiction for heroes to perform incredible feats, like Robin Hood splitting an arrow, or a hero who deflects arrows with his sword, etc.
This paradigm seems to imply that it's acceptable for Monks to perform supernatural-seeming feats but not acceptable for traditional warrior archetypes.

It always seemed to me the Monk class was piloting out some ideas for different mechanics.  Here's what I see.
1. Hit points get an extra kicker at 1st level
2. Hit points advance very slowly relative to other fighting types,
3. AC improves with level
4. Ability to dodge missiles improves with level
5. Ability to avoid falling damage improves with level
6. Half-or-no damage saving throws, saves improving with level
7. Gains multiple attacks more incrementally and to a greater degree than fighters
8. Does more damage on a hit, both with weapons and with open hand
9. Movement rate increases with level rather than being fixed

Apart from perhaps hat last point, as movement rates are so unloved and overlooked, these fit along this theme of something you hear from RPGers all the fucking time. Hit points increase too much in D&D. Characters should get better at defending themselves with level. They should be harder to hit. They should take less damage. Attacker skill should factor into damage, etc.

The idea always is that when taken together, it's not intended to make the character more effective or less effective. It's just an alternative to the standard D&D mechanics. And that's what you see in the monk class. It's supposed to be more or less balanced with the other classes. They aren't actually doing anything exceptionally athletic or supernatural. Not to any degree greater than a fighter, anyway. So your conclusions do not actually follow from the facts.

It's just alternative mechanics. The exact sort of mechanics we're always hearing gamers say they want. But it turns out, when you do exactly that and add it to the game as an option players can select, stacked side-by-side with the standard D&D mechanics, strangely enough it's not an overwhelmingly popular choice among gamers. Sometimes it's literally the exact same gamers who loudly advocate for these mechanics also rag on the monk. That's something worth taking a step back and pondering.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 07, 2023, 10:34:37 AM
It's just alternative mechanics. The exact sort of mechanics we're always hearing gamers say they want. But it turns out, when you do exactly that and add it to the game as an option players can select, stacked side-by-side with the standard D&D mechanics, strangely enough it's not an overwhelmingly popular choice among gamers. Sometimes it's literally the exact same gamers who loudly advocate for these mechanics also rag on the monk. That's something worth taking a step back and pondering.

Yes, although there are two parts to the Monk class: Mechanics, and flavor.

In the poll that I created for this thread, I asked whether people liked either of these aspects. I'm not particularly attached to the Monk's flavor, as I think this archetype isn't particularly prevalent in fantasy literature. But many of these mechanics are fun and worth having.

However, I do think that the Monk's existence typically pushes other classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc) into a worse position from both a flavor and mechanics standpoint.

Quote from: Dinopaw on May 12, 2023, 03:47:56 AM
Yes, although there are two parts to the Monk class: Mechanics, and flavor.

In the poll that I created for this thread, I asked whether people liked either of these aspects. I'm not particularly attached to the Monk's flavor, as I think this archetype isn't particularly prevalent in fantasy literature. But many of these mechanics are fun and worth having.

However, I do think that the Monk's existence typically pushes other classes (Fighter, Rogue, etc) into a worse position from both a flavor and mechanics standpoint.

I'm pretty much meh on all of your above points.

1. While you can discuss mechanics and flavor as two separate things, I don't think it's natural to separate them. And judging from Gary's other fantasy RPGs, it seems like there was some conscious attempt there to avoid saying, "This thing is just like that thing but with a different hat." I think what the monk class brings to the table is two-fold. One, it demonstrates how robust the system is by showing you how it can interface with two different mechanical approaches to combat and have them running simultaneously. But it's also, here's this new archetype, let's put some unique mechanics to it so it actually feels different. If you make the mechanics uniform across the board, I think you do kill the flavor of the monk. Mechanics in flavor are a lot more separate in theory than they are in practice.

2. Whether intentionally or not, you've chosen a loaded metric in "fantasy literature." I mean I referenced William of Gellone, who was a real world canonized figure with a presumably exaggerated legend to him. But I think the real thing you miss is when the whole "martial arts" thing became popular in the US during the 70's, it's not like there was a ton of immortal classics in the realm of fantasy literature. Meanwhile action films, adventure cartoons, and video games were skyrocketing in popularity. It would be fatally myopic to not include them in your metric. Because a completely different story emerges there. You probably also would have thought a Shao Lin monk type character in the old west was out of place until David Carradine did it. He Man had Jitsu, Thundercats had Hachiman, Red Sonja had Prince Tarn. There were plenty of other examples of East mixing with West. Casey Jones and the Ninja Turtles. Films like Bloodsport that really did the deep dive emphasized vastly different fighting styles and brought them all together. Which you would also see in games like Double Dragon, Final Fight, and Street Fighter. What I was seeing a lot of in terms of gaming in the 80's the kids thought Oriental Adventures was cool but were also hesitant to play OA because we didn't really understand the culture or even what the names of our characters should sound like. I wish it would have occurred to me sooner just to pull PC and NPC names off of a Chinese menu. Moo Goo Gai Pan could have been the Bargle of the east. But instead we took the parts of OA we liked and implanted them into our fantasy worlds. Which, by the way, if you actually take a close look at the content of AD&D, it's clear that the fantasy world was always intended to have a wide variety of cultures.

3. I don't think there's any actual evidence of the monk displacing other characters at all, let alone "typically." I think this is a purely imagined phenomenon resulting from an overdose of RPG forum theory, like so much jenkem.